Case Reports

CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v ALPINA COFFEE SYSTEMS GmbH, Order of 13 September 2023[1] In a case before the Vienna Local Division, the patent holder, CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb...

The Milan Local Division has granted an inspection order[1] pursuant to Rules 192-199 RoP, the first order granted by the UPC allowing inspection of a defendant's premises.

NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v President and Fellows of Harvard College (UPC_CFI_252/2023) Decision delivered on 30 October 2023 (Order no.

Plant-e Knowledge B.V. & Plant-e B.V. v Arkyne Technologies S.L. Order of 18 October 2023 (ORD_581189/2023) The claimants, two Netherlands companies, ("Plant-e") launched an infringement action on 12...

AIM Sport Vision AG v Supponor Oy & Others (UPC_CFI_214/2023) Decision of 20 October 2023 (ORD_572699/2023 and ORD_5821/2023) Facts & Main Arguments These proceedings before the Unified Patent Court...

myStromer AG v Revolt Zycling AG Düsseldorf Local Division Order of 18 October (ORD_526778/ 2023)[1] Following its first ex parte provisional injunction[2], the UPC (Düsseldorf Local Division)...

Ocado Innovation Limited v Autostore AS & Others – Order of 17 October 2023 (ORD 543819/2023) In September we reported on two judgments by Munich Central Division refusing requests for access to...

Order ORD_576853/2023 [1] dated 29 Sept 2023 by Local Chamber Munich (Presiding Judge and Rapporteur Mr. Zigann) in the case Edwards Lifesciences Corp. vs. Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd.

Amgen Inc v Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH & Ors Order of 13 October 2023 (Order ref ORD_580110/2023) [1] Both Amgen and Sanofi-Aventis appealed an order [2] in which an extension of the deadline...

The UPC has published its third decision to preserve evidence (following the related Orders of 13 and 14 June 2023 in Oerlikon Textile GMBH & CO KG v Himson Engineering Private Limited and v Bhagat...

On the same day that the decision granting 10x Genomics a provisional injunction against NanoString on the basis of the unitary patent EP4108782 was announced (19 September 2023), there also took...

Ocado Innovation Limited v. Autostore AS Order of 11 September 2023[1] (Order ref ORD_571090/2023) Ocado filed an infringement action against Autostore on 2 June 2023 in the Milan local division.

Amgen Inc v Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH & Ors Order of 29 August 2023 (Order ref ORD_566193/2023)[1] This case arises from a difference of date of service on multiple defendants, and thus raises...

The UPC Local Division in Munich handed down a decision on 19 September 2023 following a hearing over two days on 5/6 September 2023, granting a provisional injunction against NanoString to restrain...

A judge of the Central court in Munich has recently considered a request by a third party for access to written pleadings and evidence under Rule 262.1(b) in two cases.

The Court of Appeal upheld the validity of Babek International Ltd’s trade mark after Iceland Foods Ltd challenged its registration. The judgment clarified that a trade mark must be a single, clearly and precisely represented sign capable of distinguishing goods or services. The court found that Babek’s mark met these requirements, rejecting arguments about lack of clarity and permissible variations. Iceland’s appeal was dismissed, affirming the trade mark’s validity and providing guidance on interpreting trade mark descriptions and representations.

Boehringer Ingelheim successfully obtained another interim injunction from the UK High Court against Dr Reddy, reinforcing its patent rights in ongoing pharmaceutical litigation. The article outlines the case details, the court’s reasoning, and what this decision means for patent enforcement in the UK.

Summary A recent EPO Boards of Appeal decision, T 0136/24, has examined the issue of "reasonable expectation of success" when the prior art discloses a protocol to an ongoing phase 3 clinical trial.

In the recent Decision T 2387/22, the Board's key message was: if you define an invention by a "relative improvement" of a known technical effect, the improvement must be expressed in "objectively...

On 2 July 2025, the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) issued its landmark decision in case G 1/23 (Solar Cell Sealing Materials and Solar Cell Module), a ruling that has...

Jeff Gosling Limited ("JGL") sued Autochair Limited in the IPEC for a declaration of non-infringement concerning its "Apex Assist" hoist and Autochair's patent, which covers a particular set-up of a...

Bargain Busting Ltd v Shenzhen SKE Technology Co Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 1239 (Ch) Summary This judgment concerns an application by the first Defendant for an interim injunction to restrain the...

On April 30, 2025, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) released a draft amendment of the Patent Examination Guidelines (for public comment), proposing further revisions to...

Following hot behind the interim injunction decisions regarding the same subject matter between AstraZeneca and Glenmark (and covered previously in this newsflash here), on 28 April 2025, the High...

AstraZeneca v Glenmark has seen the parties visiting the courts several times since the validity trial (heard in March of this year) over the past few weeks.

DW Windsor Ltd v Urbis Schreder Ltd [2025] EWHC 563 (IPEC) (14 March 2025) Summary This action involves two companies that design, manufacture and supply exterior lighting fixtures.

Babek International Ltd v Iceland Foods Ltd [2025] EWHC 547 (IPEC) https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/IPEC/2025/547.html This case concerns a trade mark held by Babek International Ltd which they...

His Honour Judge Hacon has found that Prevayl's patent for a smart bra was invalid for obviousness over two pieces of prior art. However, had the patent been valid, Whoop would be indirectly...

In T 0458/22 (which has a "B" distribution code indicating it is significant enough to be distributed to all Members of the EPO's Technical Boards of Appeal), the Board of Appeal appears to have gone...

Dainese S.p.A. v. Alpinestars S.p.A., Alpinestars Research S.p.A., Omnia Retail S.r.l., Horizon Moto 95 – Maxxess Cergy, Zund.Stoff Augsburg/Ulrich Herpich E.K., Motocard Bike S.I.